h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I'll freely admit that I need to do a better job of checking my posts for spelling and grammar errors.
But, Pit, maybe you're not the one to cast stone. Eh?

?

Thanks, anhaga. I see you did just fine answering Zagreb's concerns yourself.

MOTHER????????? sometime you can be a right BCH!!!!!!

remember, the first one to cast the stone will spned a perpetuity for all of time in the grips of teh evil gromary one and his gnarly nose.

Jack, I enjoy having a lively discussion with mannered people in a language that is not my own. Anything you mind me writing - have at me, I´ll buy you a drink for helping me to improve my English.

OK.
Agnostic. From memory: coined by Thomas Huxley from the Greek "a" meaning "without" or "lacking" and "gnosis" for "knowledge".
It is a philosophical stance that knowledge of the supernatural, more specifically gods, is absent or even impossible but does not deny the possibility of such immaterial things.

I've no complaint about your English, just what you said in it, --
"A" "gnostic" => "not" "believing". Learn a bit of what you´re spouting about, even if it´s just language. -- your were in error on two counts. Both the meaning of the word and that I was the one ignorant of it.

Hands across the ocean then - rather a campfire than incense.

I'm going to bed now.


Read into that what you will.

Happy snores!

>>People who are unsure whether or not they believe in God (or gods) are said to be agnostic<<

Thus begins the article at A446339

I disagree with this definition, because I think it's honestly impossible to remain ambivalent in this regard. One either believes or disbelieves, however strongly or weakly.

Agnosticism is, therefore, not a belief claim, but is an adjective which which refines a philosophic position

My computer's dictionary says an agnostic is: >>1). a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; 2). a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.<<

Again, I agree with the first definition, but consider the second an impossible mental state, or an exceedingly abnormal one.

Whereas the first definition is about making an absolute claim one way or another, as to the existence or non-existence of a God or gods, the second is about belief, which, by definition, has little to do with evidence.

An honest theist, if there were such a thing, could maintain a belief in God, yet admit there is no real evidence for God's existence. Such a person would be an agnostic theist.

An atheist, taking the sceptical view, while seeing no evidence supporting belief in God, would admit that, scientifically speaking, one can never claim 100% certainty. Such a person would be an agnostic atheist.

.. about NOT making an absolute claim...

there is no god!!!

you cannot prove a negative.

therefore the burden of proof does not lay with me but with others to prove that god exists

Typically, 'god' isn't defined. The theist can, and frequently does, thus avoid the necessity of evidence.

i have made a statement of fact and i am on rock solid ground.

i am that confident i dont even need an earthing chain

So say I, and the Pope.

You are on quite solid ground, Taff.

And there is some compelling science on your side, too:

>> (Stephen Hawkings) supposes that there is a timeless space, a four-dimensional hypersphere, near the beginning of the universe.
It is smaller than the nucleus of an atom.
It is smaller than 10^-33 centimeters in radius.
Since it was timeless, it no more needs a cause than the timeless god of theism.
This timeless hypersphere is connected to our expanding universe.
Our universe begins smaller than an atom and explodes in a Big Bang and here we are today in a universe that is still expanding.
Is it nonetheless possible that God could have caused this universe?
No.
For the wave function of the universe implies there is a 95% probability that the universe came into existence uncaused.
If God created the universe, he would contradict this scientific law in two ways:
First, the scientific law says that the universe would come into existence because of its natural, mathematical properties, not because of any supernatural forces.
Second, the scientific law says the probability is only 95% that the universe would come into existence.
But if God created the universe, the probability would be 100% that it would come into existence because God is all-powerful.
If God wills the universe to come into existence, his will is guaranteed to be 100% effective.<<

you can massage the numbers the other way as well

<>

so the probability of god existing is only 5%??????

not so all powerfull now is he, bottom 5% of dieties

Much, much less than 5%

Consider all the other gods, goddesses... The supernatural competition is quite fierce

Source of quote from 177 -- http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/quentin_smith/atheism.html